Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Yeah, I'd like to know more....

This should make you angry:

But, if this is as it appears, then I'd also like to see the officers charged. And terminated. and jailed.


Papers, please?

Realize that this was not a port of entry, but an "internal checkpoint". I dislike the idea of the internal checkpoint, but once the officer had asked the question regarding citizenship, then the rest is an illegal search. They had no cause to stop anyone, and just because the dude didn't grovel cooperate is no reason for any of the treatment shown on the videotape.



Anyone got more details?

And lest you say, "gee. all he had to do was answer a few questions".....remember, he was inside the borders, at an illegal checkpoint, and that pesky Constitution says he DIDN'T have to answer.

It is a short step from here to "Your Papers Please". And a very sharp slope downward.

Found HERE

14 comments:

Murphy's Law said...

A few things:

Border Patrol has full authority within 50 miles of the border, and these internal checkpoints make it a lot harder for illegals and drug smugglers to get in here. The Supreme Court has already hashed this one over and they're perfectly legal and constitutional despite what the haters on the internet say.

2. The guy was deliberately being a douchebag and has a camera set up specifically so that he could record things for his fan base. He wanted this confrontation and he was in full control right up until they took him out of the car. This was all him.

3. You cannot refuse consent at a border checkpoint. That was just stupid. But again, he wanted an argument for his video.

4. The dog alerted on the car and the officer told him that. That right there is grounds for the search.

5. The video cuts away and we're not told what the border patrol found or what the guy's charges are, even as he's fundraising for legal help. Did they find dope? I think at 5;36, the wife even tells the officer "There's a bong over there," which suggests drugs. But the audio's hard to make out. I'd love to hear the whole story, not just that which the moron cop-baiter decided to share.

In sum, I side with Border Patrol on this one.

B said...

Gee what a surprise that you jump to side with the cops here...

But having said that, I'd like to see the details as well.

I don't think the internal checkpoints are Constitutional. And there is no constitutional reason to search at an internal checkpoint. This is NOT a Point of Entry. No Customs rules apply.

Dog was SAID to have alerted. Subject to interpretation. Often the dog "alerts" because the handler tells him too. Yes, I know you'll say otherwise, but the K9 folks train at my place. I know stuff about K9 searches you you probably don't.

Oddly enough, I use my cell phone video/audio in every interaction with police. Just so there is an impartial record. Most cops are good. Some aren't some are just assholes. Some (like the video shows) can get downright nasty when you don't cooperate enough. Best to have an impartial witness.

Murphy's Law said...

Yeah, I'm nothing if not predictable.

As to the constitutionality, it's been addressed. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)said that the government has a compelling interest to deter illegal immigration and that the intrusion on those being stopped is minimal. Typical balancing test used and checkpoints stand.

And I thought that the Border Patrol guys there were very nice and professional. They didn't get caught up in the guy's drama, they didn't curse or disrespect him, and they didn't use excessive force. They asked for cooperation, and when that failed, they gave simple instructions, and when the guy showed them that he was not going to comply no matter what, they merely removed him from the car and detained him. That was pretty much textbook. I didn't see any "nasty" there at all. They are there to do a job and they did it, and this guy set the tone with HIS actions.

As to K9 operations...well that can be the subject of another in-person discussion, but let's say that I'm no stranger to working with and around dogs, and I'll tell you right now that the dogs don't alert on command just to allow officers to jack people up, and even if they could, there's no point. These guys are looking for specific things and they know that every time they have to waste time with some douche like this guy, those things are going right past in other cars.

Joe said...

Just because the Court says it is legal does not make it right

Murphy's Law said...

Just because you don't agree with it, that doesn't make it wrong. Now we're getting into the area of subjectivity, but if we're going to uphold the Constitution as the gold standard, then we've got to accept it when it's applied by the Highest Court that it created, even if we don't personally care for the outcome.

B said...

Murphy:

You Are correct. THe law, as upheld by the court, is the law. But a question: At what point do we say 'STOP" as government becomes ever more intrusive? THese checkpoints are not at the border, where CBP has jurisdiction. They are INSIDE the boundaries of the US. THey are illegal searches. Not the stop, which is deemed ok by the courts, to ask for citizenship, but the rest of the search. If a local police department were to set up checkpoints for the purpose of searching vehicles in, say, Kansas, that would be deemed an illegal search....no probable cause to do so just because people were driving down a given road at a given time. Yet this is no different. So why is it ok?

Murphy's Law said...

We as a nation of citizens can say "stop" at any time merely by working though our elected representatives and changing the laws that currently allow such checkpoints. It's really just that simple, and it's a lot more effective than setting up a camera in one's car and driving through a checkpoint and provoking a law-enforcement response by deliberately acting like a tool.

As to the location of these checkpoints, again, where is it written that CBP has to stay physically on the border? They clearly have jurisidiction at hundreds of airports and port facilities that are well inside our nation's borders, and they also have the authority to stop and check buses moving along our interior highways. If you want to contest their jurisdiction, you'll need to show us something that statutorily limits them just to the border. (Good luck with that.) As to the searches being "illegal", again, the Court ruled in the Martinez case that Border Patrol agents at these checkpoints specifically has wide latitude to ask questions and briefly detain cars and their occupants for secondary inspection, and if, during those inspections, they develop probable cause for a search...game on.

This has all been litigated before, much of it before the dim bulb video stars like Rick Herbert were even born.

As to the example you made of Kansas police doing the same thing, that woulnd't happen because they lack the specific statutory authority to detect and deter illegal aliens and drug smugglers that forms the basis for CBP's existence. This is what they were created to do, and these checkpoints are a time-tested, court-approved means of doing it with as little impact on the average citizen as is practically possible.

Divemedic said...

Once the BP has established that you are not entering the country, the BP has no reason to ask what is in your trunk, nor can they search your vehicle.
Sorry, I disagree, and we are fast approaching the point where we as citizens have to either admit we are slaves to a police state, or that cops are fair game as enemy combatants.

IRISH said...

Here is a PDF file of your rights regarding the CBP

http://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/documents/ACLU%20Border%20Rights%20ENGLISH.pdf

Murphy's Law said...

@Divemedic: You might want to read the Martinez case that I've cited above. It's pretty much settled that Border patrol can in fact detain you briefly for inspection and search your vehicle if they have cause. We can post opinions to the contrary on the internet all day long, but it isn't going to change forty years of jurisprudence on the issue.

That said, I find your suggestion that cops are "fair game" as "enemy combatants" to be pretty offensive. Or did you forget that our nation's founders intended America to be a nation of laws, with no provision for citizens arbitrarily disregarding those laws or declaring war on the nation.

And for those planning to respond by cut-pasting tons of one-liners about overthrowing tyranny, please don't waste your time or mine, because we're nowhere close to anything approaching tyranny in this country.

B said...

So what, besides the question of citizenship is applicable cause? The dog in this case did not alert. (but we all know that "alert" is subject to interpretation anyway) and there was no other cause for a search. Martinez finds that "The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens." Clearly this was not the case once the officer glanced into the car.

Further, your suggestion that just because there are CBP people at Ports of Entry that the rest of the US land mass is also their territory is either proof that you are stupid or just an attempt at argument. The searches at bus terminals and train stations are done by DHS, not CBP and are legally required to be voluntary, not mandatory (but they don't tell people that) Airports and Ports of Entry are controlled spaces, treated as if they were indeed borders. The rest of the US is not . Further outside of checking citizenship there is no other legal reason to search.

While DiveMedic may be a bit over the top, at some point his vision of how things will be will become true, as people are rejecting the ever encroaching authorities and their attempt to control our lives in an unConsitutional manner.

Further, the CBP agent in the video broke the law once he reached into the car to open the door without reason to detain the driver. While I agree that the driver could have prevented his issue by being just a small bit cooperative, the agent went beyond his rules when he arrested the driver for non cooperation. He can detain to ascertain citizenship, but nothing else.

And let's face it....if there is any interest in providing a "deterrent towards smuggling and illegal immigration" (per Martinez), then we should start deporting and not releasing these thousands of people caught crossing the borders daily that are released by the Obama Administration. The Checkpoints are a drop in the bucket compared to the borders themselves. This is an attempt at teaching citizens control, not at keeping our nation safe or immigration control. If it were different, then we'd not "catch and release" those folks crossing the border.

Murphy's Law said...

Well the officer said in the video that the dog alerted on the car. You have evidence to the contrary? Even the guy who got stopped--who actually had pro-meth posts on his Facebook page this morning--won't deny that he had drugs when he's been asked by me and others.

And once the guy refused to follow instructions, Border Patrol had every right to detain him and remove him from behind the wheel of that car before he could flee or injure someone. There was no law broken there. It was just normal police work. Frankly it always puzzles me when those of who express nothing but contempt for the police somehow expect that the police are supposed to always talk to them with respect and kindness and let them ask fifteen thousand questions when the police give an order. That's not how it works.

As to the Border Patrol, yes, they do go on buses, not DHS, and Border Patrol has a fairly broad jurisdiction within the internal United States, pretty much defined as anything within a hundred miles of a border or the coastline. It's been that way for many years. If you disagree, then please tell me what you think it is and why you think so.

The issue of countless illegal aliens in our country is one that we can agree on, but for the purpose of this discussion it's irrelevant. We're talking the checkpoints specifically now, or at least I thought that we were. I also don't see these as a big deal or part of any plot to control all of America or get people used to a police state. That's not what these are about at all, and if the only ones getting jacked up by them are the illegals and meth-heads like the one in the video, I'm ok with us having a few more of them. I've been through them and there's nothing to them. Of course I don't roll through with a camera and an agenda and try to create a problem just for the Youtube fame.

Divemedic said...

I will leave you with a quote:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It is inevitable that, as police gain more and more power for themselves, that the people will eventually be forced to make a choice: Either accept the increasing encroachments upon their liberty and bcome slaves to the police state, or rebel. If they rebel, those police officers will be enemy combatants.

Either way, it will be no different than what Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et. al. did to British law enforcement.

People like to paint the American revolution as some clean conflict. That was far from the case. Washington was what we would refer to today as a terrorist. They killed law enforcement, government officials, and their families. Men, women, children- it didn't matter. War is ugly, revolution is ugly, no matter how many Americans want to paint it as some sort of sporting event.

B said...

Actually, outside of the 100 miles from the border, the CBP has no jurisdiction unless at a Point of Entry. So, no buses outside of there. They may be there, but they always have another officer from a local jurisdiction or a US Marshall with them.

And my point is that the Checkpoints are there to prevent illegals from entering the country. Which is indeed a noble and legal cause. But when the CBP and DHS refuse to patrol or close the border and aid illegals entering the country as well as fail to prosecute those who are caught, then the checkpoint has no basis to exist, as it is undermined by the other efforts. So what else is the Checkpoint there for, if not to teach people to comply? Again, you are correct, dude was looking for trouble and found some. I do believe that anything beyond asking if he was a citizen was an illegal search and detention. The courts may disagree. However, I have refused to give any information at DUI checkpoints for the same reason. I believe that the stop is an illegal search, lacking any other probable cause. So far, each time, I have been passed without trouble, as the officers were unsure if I was right or not. Once they determine that you are not, indeed drunk, they have no reason to go farther. Same thing here. Absent reasonable suspicion that he was an illegal or a smuggler, they had no reason to detain him.